Town Square

If worldwide carbon emissions continue at the present rate, rising temperatures could cause the Sierra Nevada to lose 80 percent of its winter
snowpack in just 40 years, a United States Geological Survey scientist predicts.

So let me get this straight. You can barely tell me that with only a 60% probability that it will rain this weekend but you are 100% certain that over the next 40 years we will loose snowpack, ocean levels will rise, famine, drought, cats & dogs living together, etc...

Posted by Russell Welles
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 26, 2012 at 10:19 am

Suchanek? Sounds Eastern European, and probably communist. Educated in Prage by chance? Most scientists now believe the kinds of claims Suchaneck makes are not credable. Anyone see the Sierra snowpack last week? I rest my case.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 26, 2012 at 12:51 pm

"fake agenda driven pseudo-science behind us?"

Pseudo-science is what you listen to. I guess you support Santorum and his "I don't believe in evolution" nonsense? Unbelievable that in 2012, we have people who don't believe in evolution, global warming, birth control!

You might want to read scientific facts before making a fool of yourself with ignorant comments.

Global warming religionists, we were told a few years ago that we'd all be underwater by now, due to rising sea levels. So want happened? Algore bought beach front property.

Just to humor you fear mongerers, (doesnt your Ilk always blame the republicans for spreading fear?), let's say your faith in various climate models is true......there's still no irrefutable proof it's due to human activity. The earth has warmed before the industrial revolution....why? It's now all about politics, control and money.

Besides, no matter how much you whine, the Indians and the chinese contribute way more carbon....they own us and have no intention of complying with your trite notions and religious beliefs.

Steve is just a spigit of information. He knows that all sientists are religionists practicing their witchcraft while the eyes of the Almight God, Jesus, looks down upon their unpatriotic spews. I can name at least 30 religionists who said only a few years ago we'd all be underwater by now, but why bother. This is common knowlege that eveyone knows accept the evil trolls who get on here and tell you there lyies.

Posted by more ideas
a resident of Foothill High School
on Mar 27, 2012 at 8:40 am

This alarmist presentation is based on predictions from models, yet climate models show no skill in predicting climate. You can read climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr's blog for a number of articles on models: Web Link

In the Wall Street Journal there is an opinion piece by Princeton physicist William Happer titled, "Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again."

"There has indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warmingmuch of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciablysuggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.

Frustrated by the lack of computer-predicted warming over the past decade, some IPCC supporters have been claiming that "extreme weather" has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no hard evidence this is true. After an unusually cold winter in 2011 (December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually warm in the continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia and Alaska.

Weather conditions similar to 2012 occurred in the winter of 1942, when the U.S. Midwest was unusually warm, and when the Wehrmacht encountered the formidable forces of "General Frost" in a Russian winter not unlike the one Russians just had.

Large fluctuations from warm to cold winters have been the rule for the U.S., as one can see from records kept by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. For example, the winters of 1932 and 1934 were as warm as or warmer than the 2011-2012 one and the winter of 1936 was much colder."

California is in la-la land if it thinks it can make an impact on climate. Cap & trade or any carb tax scheme is a tax on production to generate revenue.

adrianna, you're free to believe whatever you want, but you are not free to rule others lives through regulations meant to indocrinate others in your beliefs, however misguided and arrogant they might be.
Imagine you and your followers actually having an impact (one way or another) on global climate.....you can't honestly believe that a fly spec like you can change the planet by driving your Prius or riding your bike and demanding others attain 3rd world status, do you?

TOS, if you have a subscription to Time magazine, you can read this linked article published in 1974 about the next ice age (global cooling): Web Link
I suppose all these scares come and go in waves.....the next will be worldwide water shortages because our hedonistic lifestyle promotes daily bathing......bet gollum, mittens will be the first to stop bathing so he/she/it can save the world.

Jack, I never said stop studying. By all means, keep raking in cash grants for our largest, academic institutions and we'll pretend that the large sums of money they consume will produce unbiased results.
As for your straw man arguements, before you advocate spending more money tilting at windmills, whether by taking money away from other programs or by increasingly conficating earnings via taxes, the burden of proof is on the scientists irrefutable evidence that the additional spending will produce an expected result that justifies the spending. Is that not fair or logical? Or should we cave into the hysterical rantings of the chicken little's? Maybe we should be paying repairations to the weather gods for BBQ'ing on the weekends.....

Posted by Russell Welles
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 27, 2012 at 10:54 am

'Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research."[3]'

And Willy Happer, cited by another P-town intelectual above:

"geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer stressed that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion pointed to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures, and advised Happer to read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and publish a scientific report detailing his objections to its findings. He has thus far, failed to provide a scientific response."

You see, here's the logic. All the scientist-religinists are getting grant money from the govt., based on their credibility through peer-reviewed published research. But thats all bunkum. All the real scientists - the 'denialologists' - get their money from oil and coal industries. That's capitalism and free enterprise, and so its the truth. And thats what me, steve and all the other farmboys of P-town beleive.

Posted by jack
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 27, 2012 at 11:17 am

"... that the additional spending will produce an expected result that justifies the spending."

I'm not clear on what you are saying here. Are you arguing against any further research, because that would mean "additional spending"? Are you saying we've done enough research now, and should stop? Or are you arguing against increasing the ongoing spending, but are OK with continuing at the current spending levels? Please clarify.

" the burden of proof is on the scientists irrefutable evidence that the additional spending will produce an expected result that justifies the spending"

It sounds like you are saying "the scientists" should prove something before getting the money for the research. Could you please clarify what you are saying here, and would it be different from any kind of research, climate science, relativity, or whatever?

Posted by more ideas
a resident of Foothill High School
on Mar 27, 2012 at 11:17 am

Hi Jack,

Since the alarmist presentation deals with snow cover of the Sierras, I'll let the science speak for itself: Web Link

"For those regions characterized by consistent monitoring and with the most robust statistical reproducibility, we find no statistically significant trends in their periods-of-record (up to 133 years) nor in the most recent 50 years. This result encompasses the main snowfall region of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains."

A more detailed reporting of John Christy's Sierra Snowfall study is covered in the SF Chronicle: Web Link

Here is an excerpt:

"The dramatic claims about snow disappearing in the Sierra just are not verified," said Christy, a climate change skeptic and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It looks like you're going to have snow for the foreseeable future."

Let's be clear about the fact that the original article posted to the PW is not science; rather, it is a policy agenda communication piece from "Forecast the Facts" along the lines of Fenton Communications working in conjunction with Soros funded Tides Center.

As for my opinion that California's policy will not be able to make any appreciable impact on global climate change, I direct you to several of the science/policy discussions on Dr Judith Curry's blog Climate Etc.: Web Link

The policy cart has been put before the horse, so to speak, and our understanding of the physical science is still in its infancy. Yes, I believe that human's impact the earth's biosphere through land use and fossil fuels. But unless CA can lasso the ENSO cycles, the CA green policies will do little to change the earth's global climate. I'm all for regional adaptation and mitigation strategies, but the top down, whole earth sustainability models are grossly unjustified at this point.

Humans are resilient and adaptable, and I try to do my part. I drive a Prius, work virtual as often as I can, keep the thermostat down to 68 F. in winter, don't run the air conditioning in summer, use a drip system to irrigate our landscaping, recycle & compost, but I cannot afford a solar system, nor justify the cost-benefit analysis over the long term.

CA has a proud heritage of fighting pollution, but I believe CA has far greater policy concerns than the impacts of global climate change.

That's my opinion from years of following climate change alarmism back to the seventies and the alarm over an impending ice age, not to mention a number of Malthusian alarmist predictions of overpopulation. I support the views of Freeman Dyson who says that "climate change is part of the normal order of things, and we know it was happening before humans came."

Posted by Russell Welles
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 27, 2012 at 11:30 am

'more ideas from foothill' cites Freeman Dyson. But Dyson...

is well-aware that his "heresy" on global warming has been strongly criticized by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[17] Yes, because scietists should be receptive to criticism, especially when the critic admits to not having much knowledge about technicial facts.

So, fruitcake from Foothill, more ideas or more wishful thinking? Are you able to recognize the difference between a scientific study and some of the oil company-financed sham opinions that you've been promoting?

Posted by Russell Welles
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 27, 2012 at 11:40 am

The fruitcake from Foothill, calling himself 'more ideas' (make that more misinformation), cites the climate skeptic John Christy -- professor at the highly prestigeous U of Alabama ... Huntsville.

About Christy:

John Christy has been found to be a shill for the oil companies, receiving considerable funding because he was unable to procure grants from credible grants institutions, and he has been exposed for a fudged study (in short, he lied) that he was forced to retract. Recently, however, he has been seen as adapting to the mainstream view and leaving skepticism behind.

It is more than a little disgusting that people like the fruitcake from foothill attempt to fob off this rubbish upon readers.

Posted by more ideas
a resident of Foothill High School
on Mar 27, 2012 at 11:59 am

Apparently I hit a nerve. Nothing that I wrote deserves the name calling. I linked the SF Chronicle article for a contrasting view. John Christy is a respected climate scientist. I pointed out a few links to climate discussion at a deeper level on Dr. Curry's blog. For the sake of brevity, I tried to characterize my skepticism to the alarmists mantra, ala Freemon Dyson. You add nothing to the discussion by trotting out these false big oil memes. Climate alarmism funding far exceeds the funding of independent scientists.

Posted by Wayne
a resident of Walnut Hills
on Mar 27, 2012 at 12:49 pm

You probably hit a nerve because your "ideas" are "supported" by largely discredited, bought-and-paid for, er, "independent" scientists as you refer to them. You appear not to have a grounded conception of what science is or how credible scientists secure funding for their research. In short, a blog or newspaper opinion piece is not the same thing as a blind, peer reveiwed essay. You appear not to know this. Our planet is burning up, largely (not entirely) on account of human activity, and silly geese like yourself refer to blogs and opinion pieces written by people who either are admittedly ignorant of the facts (Dyson) or bought off by the industries that produce carbon dioxide (Christy, Soon, Happer). Your reliance on these shills suggests you either are ignorant or willfully disingenuous (or, in my judgment, an unfortunate combination of both). You wonder why people call you names?

So, let me get this straight. The Foothill High School District guy, under the name 'more ideas', promotes an agenda of misinformation bought and paid for by the likes of Mobil, Exxon and Shell, and Stacey gets bent out of shape because I call the guy a silly goose? File this one under the category: There is a world (which is burning up), and then there is Stacey's world of PW Forum behavior. Nothing like having one's priorities (realities) in order!

Posted by more ideas
a resident of Foothill High School
on Mar 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm

Actually, I have great respect for the physical science processes and peer-review. Unfortunately, some climate scientists have made a mockery of what used to be considered the gold-standard of peer-reviewed science by their gate-keeping. Do you want to discuss the antics of climate scientists as revealed by "climategate" I & II or the IPCC?

As for grant funding, I know all to well how it works in the service of policy.

This is a town forum discsussion. I posted links in kind to add to the discussion. I don't believe the hyped alarmism that the Sierras will be without snow. I posted a link to the peer-reviewed literature. In fact, this type of alarmism is harming the "cause."

While you claim the planet is burning up, are you relying on the climate model predictions that overestimate the earth's sensitivity to CO2? Because physical reality does not support your claim.

The science that describes and evaluates global warming, contrary to the silly goose's right-wing fantasy claim, is not in the service of policy. The science knows neither Bush nor Obama administration. The science proceeds according to critical theory building/hypothesis testing.

Yes, the media made a big deal about some reputable scientists joking to themselves about a couple of fools and how those same scientists acted to exclude the fools from partaking of a forum consisting of legitimate scientific discourse; and given your agenda, no doubt you've read the media reports without bothering to know the bases of the joking and exclusion. In science, some arguments are so transparently false, so illogical, so contradicted by theory and fact, that scientists will not entertain them. (Think of the relationship between the Amer Medical Assoc and chiropractors. Hint: chiropractors are not invited to speak at AMA conferences. Or see jokes medical doctors tell about chiropractors.)

All the silly goose from Foothill has offered is an unsupported claim: climate model predictions are not supported by physical reality. His proof? Once again, he can only fall back on Shell's and the Koch Bros.' bought-and-paid for propagandists who have absolutely zero credibility in the scientific community.

Next the goose is going to tell us that Darwin's theory of evolution also isn't supported by physical reality. And from there it isn't far from jumping off a 100-foot bridge while screaming the 'law of gravity' is a scientific (policy serving) plot that isn't supported by physical reality.

This is my first time responding to the ignorance I'm reading in above contributions. What I'm sensing is that people think it's okay to be ignorant, it's okay to be willfully ignorant, it's even okay to tell outright lies, just don't call anyone on it because it's impolite and might hurt the ignorant one's feelings. I'm so very sorry!

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 27, 2012 at 2:31 pmStacey is a registered user.

I get you Wayne (and Russell too). It's ok to call others names because name-calling is a sound method of science education, gently nudging others in the direction of realizing when they are wrong. Sounds like Wayne is getting bent out of shape over someone calling him on his name-calling.

"more ideas" said: "That's my opinion from years of following climate change alarmism back to the seventies and the alarm over an impending ice age, not to mention a number of Malthusian alarmist predictions of overpopulation. I support the views of Freeman Dyson who says that "climate change is part of the normal order of things, and we know it was happening before humans came."

I don't think that you realize the time scale on which these things take place. Yeah, as far as ice-age cycles we're in a warming period but the ice-age cycle has a period of something like 100,000 or 200,000 years, as I recall. That cycle is a much longer term cycle than the global temperature changes that are the focus of global warming theory of several decades.

The claimed global warming trend is very slow but steady. I'll bet that most people here don't even know what the global temperature warming trend is (although that doesn't seem to stop anyone from voicing their own 2-bit opinion). Is it 1 Fahrenheit per year? Or 0.1 Fahrenheit per year? Any guesses anyone?

As I recall, the rate of global temperature warming is about 0.8 Celcius or 1.5 Fahrenheit over the last 100 years. That works out to an increase of about 0.015 Fahrenheit per year. Yes, it sounds small and you're not going to be able to measure it by comparing year 2012 temperatures to 2011 temperatures, or even to 2000 temperatures. That's too short of a time frame. But as time goes on with decade after decade, even 0.015 Fahrenheit per year adds up to a big problem. I don't know how much it will matter to many of us, but if the predictions are true it's going to be a big problem for our children and grandchildren.

Because it is behind a paywall, I also posted the SF Gate link. It is relevant to the original post. For more detailed background, here is the press release to his article that I excerpted below: Web Link

"A native of Fresno, Christy wondered if the snow he remembered covering the Sierra Nevada's peaks is actually disappearing. His preliminary investigation found a potentially useful set of data: Records of snow measurements at stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad.

"They took great care to measure snowfall because they had to know how much snow fell before sending trains through the mountain passes," Christy said. "No one else had looked at this data in detail. The records are pretty thorough and the measuring tools  a device resembling a tall, sturdy yardstick  are easy to use and obviously don't need power, so there aren't many gaps in the record."

There was, however, one catch: "They were good at measuring snow but the data they collected in written records had never been keyed in into a computer dataset. Before I could do the analysis I had to manually input 100,000 station-months of data."

The railroad data was coupled with data from other sources, including hydro-power and regional water systems vitally interested in knowing how much water would be available from snow melt. Other data was collected from logging and mining companies, as well as National Weather Service stations and volunteers. That data had already been digitized by the National Climatic Data Center."

I posted on this story because I thought the coverage by a scientist who grew up in California and was interested in the Sierras was relevant to the original post.

You are absolutely correct that science proceeds from critical theory to hypothesis testing. I also linked to the peer-reviewed literature on global climate models that lack validation and verification. For brevity sake, I posted a link to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr's blog where numerous peer-reviewed articles describe model deficiency: Web Link

Actually, take a look at his most recent post on bias in funding agencies. This is not a technical forum. This is a discussion forum. I do not have a right-wing conservative agenda. I am a member of the community and respect CA's proud heritage in fighting pollution. But this original article is alarmist garbage and not sound science.

Thanks to Sam for the input. Of course you do realize, Sam, that the degree of temp warming typically differs from one region to the next? I'm not so sure people in, say, New Orleans would agree with you about the problem only more likely affecting our children and grandchildren.

Thanks to Stacey for her insights into global warming. Oops, sorry. She hasn't offered any insights. However, her suggestion that this ongoing discourse has been about science education is really pretty funny. There is nothing scientific about the claims being made by the silly goose from Foothill High District or the frauds he cites as experts. It is politicizing, nothing more. And transparently bad politicizing at that.

Stacey, you may call me any name you desire. I find it more important to focus on people's arguments rather than obsessing on whether name-calling is civil or not. But you seem most comfortable in the area of manners, not ideas. So be it.

Wayne said: "Thanks to Sam for the input. Of course you do realize, Sam, that the degree of temp warming typically differs from one region to the next? I'm not so sure people in, say, New Orleans would agree with you about the problem only more likely affecting our children and grandchildren."

I think that the focus of global warming studies is on global temperature trends over long time periods (i.e., decades), not local differences in temperatures. But, yes, New Orleans would have a problem if global warming continues due to their height with respect to sea level. That's not a problem due to local temperatures in New Orleans, of course, but because of temperature changes at the Poles.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 27, 2012 at 3:27 pmStacey is a registered user.

You're right Wayne. I'm too sad, ignorant, dumb, and stupid to understand that our climate change challenge is best served by name-calling and politicizing rather than science education. Continue on with "focusing" on people's "arguments"! *wink* *wink*

Yes, Sam, the more extreme temp changes occur at the poles ... which is having already a dramatic effect upon oceans. Re. N. Orleans, I was thinking of increased intensity of hurricaines in Gulf of Mexico, 'aided' by warming waters.

Wayne, I've sat back reading your tedious bloviating about the oil companies and it's the same thing over and over and over. Just give up plastics, synthetics garments, gasoline, diesel, computers, carpets...those and MANY OTHER products derived from the resource those EVIL COMPANIES provide: OIL!

I won't call you a shill, Dan. But I will call you uneducated. Science?, Dan asks. Who needs it (unless it involves drilling for oil)? No, instead, Dan cites the British tabloid "Mail", which is on a par with National Enquirer. Now Dan, with his Enquiring mind, allows the tabloid piece to do the reasoning for him. Here's the reasoning: Because the earth has experienced global warming in the past, therefore it is impossible that human activity could be contributing to global warming in our contemporary times. Wonderful. Thanks for sharing, Dan. You have given us all much to think about.

Now you know why the global warming scam has been debunked as a pseudo religion.....just check out wayne and russels comments above.
They are both the same person ( notice Russell stopped posting and his alter ego Wayne appears) and are clearly dillusional alarmists with multiple personalities.
Keep trying to push your narrative kids....it's very entertaining watching you flounder trying to promote your agenda.

I entered this conversation looking for intellectual engagement, and, with perhaps one exception, all I've encountered is laughably extremist blogs, oil company propagandists, National Enquirer readers, and politeness prescriptions from Miss Abby. If that isn't bad enough, now some nut case named Steve is accusing me of being "dillusional" and having multiple personalities. So, this is what passes for reasoned discourse in Pleasanton? Thank you, but really, no thank you. Well ... back to my dreaming about dill pickles and Bertrand Russell.

Stacey, you're just too good for me. Thank you ever so kindly once again for your meaningful contributions. Now, seriously, I think there's a book on my shelf that has been crying out to be read. Best wishes.

Since you asked. No degree in climatology. Doctorate in philosophy with an emphasis in medical ethics. And to the best of my knowledge, I don't know any Russell, nor am I able to deduce how you and your sidekick Steve arrived at your accusations. Again, all best. It's been a real joy!

Stacey, I don't think that any of us here have a degree in climatology. As for the next best thing, I may be the only professional Ph.D. scientist here, but I doubt that Steve or any of the others here are going to ask me for my opinion. It's not the nature of these forums to argue on the basis of facts or educated opinions.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 27, 2012 at 8:09 pmStacey is a registered user.

BTW Sam, what's your opinion? I agree with the consensus on climate change and recognize that as time goes on there will be advances in its study. Scientists can't do science without a healthy dose of skepticism. It does take the minority studies, even those funded by big oil, to poke at general theories and advance our understanding. Thankfully the peer-review process is done by people who are much more competent than us at evaluating it.

It's unfortunate that this issue is so much politicized even by those who should know better.

Posted by Marcia
a resident of another community
on Mar 27, 2012 at 8:40 pm

Haven't read any of the comments but could someone explain to me what happened during the Ice Age and all its glaciers? Did the dinos have one big bodily gas expression...all at the same time? Seriously, it's one thing to be concerned, it's another to declare the sky is falling. Since when has Mother Nature taken a second fiddle? BTW, study the stats of how much "carbon footprint" one volcanic eruption spews out vs how much man does. It's overwhelming NOT in favor of the volcanoes. Can we plug those suckers up?

Stacey, it is indeed unfortunate that this topic has become so politicized. As for what I think, I honestly don't know. I haven't studied the topic in sufficient detail to form an educated opinion on the likely near-term future of the earth's global temperatures. But although the future is murky, at least for me, looking back at the recent past is easy. There is an interesting plot of global mean temperatures for the past century (see, for example, the plot in Wikpedia Web Link) which shows a global temperature increase of about 0.8 Celsius over the last 100 years. I think that this plot is worth studying because it shows what the claimed global warming temperature trends are and what they are not. They are about a slow steady increase in temperature but with a lot of year-to-year or even decade-to-decade scatter in the mean temperature. It's nonsense to claim that one particularly hot summer "proves" global warming or that one particularly cold winter "disproves" global warming. Even a relatively large 30 year time period of 1940 to 1970 doesn't show a global warming trend. But over the larger 100 year time period the trend is unmistakeable.

I don't know what the future will bring though because, as I said, I really haven't studied global climate models at all. Those models are very complicated and involve a lot of factors. I don't find it implausible that human industrial activity could result in global warming through increases in CO2 emissions, but there are still a lot of unknowns about how carbon is cycled from the atmosphere to the rest of the earth. Based on what I've heard and read about the subject, my best answer about whether global warming due to human activity is true is "probably, but I don't know for sure".

" I doubt that Steve or any of the others here are going to ask me for my opinion. It's not the nature of these forums to argue on the basis of facts or educated opinions."
Exactly, right, Sam...brilliant deductions as to why your opinion has not been requested (other than by a subsequent, patronizing request by Stacey). If any of us thought you'd bring facts or an educated opinion to the forum, we're sure you would have volunteered that information much earlier.....before sybil/wayne/russell put down his book and start spewing carbon.
In closing, Sam, you know vey well why this subject is politicized: Once legislators figured out they could garner votes from guilt ridden pseudo-scientists and their followers by passing laws that regulate and dimish our quality of life and the free flow of commerce, they have succeeded in turning this subject into a political exercise in control of the masses.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 28, 2012 at 1:47 pmStacey is a registered user.

Sam wrote: "I don't find it implausible that human industrial activity could result in global warming through increases in CO2 emissions, but there are still a lot of unknowns about how carbon is cycled from the atmosphere to the rest of the earth. Based on what I've heard and read about the subject, my best answer about whether global warming due to human activity is true is "probably, but I don't know for sure"."

Yea, that's how I look at it. It's hard to say that over 100 years of the continual extra loading of CO2 and particulate matter into the atmosphere by human activity wouldn't have some sort of effect. There's never really a final answer but a process of continual discovery.

Posted by Russell Welles
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 28, 2012 at 9:31 pm

Way to go DAn! Thats' telling him. I second you're accusation. I also accuse Dr. Plato of not ignorance but originality of thought.

You're arguments boared right through to the meat of the matter. I respect you're guts and so, do a lot of others. Wayne has no life but it matters, none to me. Global warming has happened before, so leave it to this bore and the rest of the bores to tell us that its man made.

Sam, you are, sir, a bore to. You're claim to be a chemist are not only exaggerated but genuine. Your nothing but a boaring sock puppet for the goverment supported scientists. Go ahead and respond wise guy! I can boor a whole through any argument, you post.

Posted by Russell Welles
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 29, 2012 at 7:49 am

Dan, who possesses an Enquiring mind, claims that grammar is way overrated. I agree. Grammar is what we use to make our thoughts meaningful and coherent. But, really, who needs meaning and coherence? Way overrated. Meaning and coherence is the stuff of our thought processes. But who needs thought? I let others do my thinking for me! I'm with you, Dan, my brother. Stay strong and don't let the wise guys get, to you.

Posted by Russell Welles
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 29, 2012 at 9:28 am

Ms. Stacey, I don't know much about your Chompsky fella. Can you tell me how he is against grammar being essential to (not identical with) rational thought? In the meantime, allow me to meaningfully and coherently close off this missive by offering this rational kernal of truth: "Colorless green sleep furiously ideas upon inadvertant in meanderings of perspicuity perspicaciousness and once." Grammar? Who needs it, eh? Dan, stay strong my brother!

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 29, 2012 at 10:30 amStacey is a registered user.

You supposedly are smarter than everyone here on climate change, Russell. You certainly don't need me to tell you how Chomsky would disagree with your assertion that Dan is stupid because you think he uses grammar incorrectly. Prescription in language is way outdated.

Posted by Russell Welles
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 29, 2012 at 11:06 am

Climate change? I only know that our best hope is those critical scientists as you call them who are paid by oil and coal companies to come up with evidence that supports continued oil and coal consumption.

Regular scientists aren't critical. At all. So there's no hope. At all. We can't trust them.

As for me, you and Chompsky, I can't help you. And I never said Dan was stupid. Me and him are simpatico. Are you mistaking me for somebody else? You mean we can't prescribe proper use of grammar any more? Grammar is outdated? I'd love to show this to my wife, cuz I've been telling her that for years now. Can you give me a source or something?

Posted by lazzboy
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 29, 2012 at 11:44 pm

Of course humans are affecting the climate. But there is not much we can do about it. If somehow tomorrow you could stop every industrial affect on CO2 (and other man made greenhouse gas output) we would still be producing more CO2 everyday then we were well into the industrial revolution just due to population growth. Meaning that there is zero possibility of reversing climate change from human CO2 output because just the act of breathing will increase CO2 well into the 1900s as compared to prior centuries which where we are "suppose" to get back to to stop this detrimental change.

We as humans can not possibly win. There is a 0% chance of reaching pre-1900 CO2 levels based solely on population, so what is the point? Go back to 1990 levels? What does that get us?